Starting in 1930, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup has occurred 19 different times and has been won by 8 different countries. It started in Uruguay and has grown in popularity and size. World War II put the competition on hold for twelve years and then the games picked up their four year cycle again. Originally hosted by Europe and the Americas in a simple rotation, the competition is now on a twelve year cycle between host continents. In 1998, over 37 billion people watched the 64 game tournament around the world.[i]
::THE PROBLEM
One issue with the World Cup is that countries are forced to build at a rate that they cannont necessarily support. For the 2006 World Cup, Germany had existing stadiums and surrounding infrastructure prior to the games. For the 2014 Games, Brazil is doing a lot of construction to make ready for both the World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. The stadiums that Brazil did have needed major renovations to meet FIFA regulations.[ii] Qatar, the host of the 2022 World Cup does not have the infrastructure to host the games so they are attempting to build it. From nine stadiums to hundreds of hotels, the games are changing the face of the country.[iii]
To host the games requires a very large budget. Expenditures are difficult to track down and political corruption is affecting the appropriation of funds for both the upcoming Brazil and Qatar games. Australia did a cost analysis for their bid for the 2022 games and determined that they would loose money once they accounted for the cost of the infrastructure. After the games, the countries are left with large stadiums that they cannot support that then become unused, taking a toll of local economies. Stadiums themselves are not built with environmental concerns in their forefront of design and building a structure that has an inherently short lifespan is not sustainable. [iv] Over half of the stadiums built for the 2010 South African World Cup are unused and are on the verge of becoming financial sinkholes since they were not designed for after the games as well as for during the event.[v]
::THE MATRIX
The World Cup requires the collaboration of countries from around the world and deals with global politics as well as national politics. A few of the problems that the World Cup creates is the major expense of hosting the games. This assumes that the funds will be properly spent on things that will add to the experience of the event though countries that cannot support the basic, minimum infrastructure are not ruled out if they can pay FIFA enough for the ‘honor’ of hosting such as the case with Qatar. Another issue that the officials overlooked was the average summer temperatures of a Middle Eastern country adding more issues and expenses to the construction of suitable stadiums.[vi] Brazilian Sports Minister Orlando Silva, who had the responsibility of organizing the 2014 World Cup resigned less than a month ago amidst allegations of corruption. Scandals continue to appear in Brazil as the public keeps exposing political crime.[vii] “Sport has become big business. This is reflected in the player’s clothing, bedecked and printed with logos, in the stadia, plastered with sponsor’s signs, in the commercials that alternate with action replays on the giant video screen and, of course, in the stadium building itself.”[viii] This issue links to the overwhelming effect of advertising on our culture as well as the sustainability problems big businesses bring with them.
Another issue is the massive carbon footprint the games have. In the 2010 World Cup, over 2.5 million tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere which is close to the amount from a million cars over the course of a year and is also six times greater than the amount from the last World Cup. The high amount of construction also created a large carbon footprint as well as South Africa’s reliance on coal burning plants for power. A small side effect of the South African games is that one of the country’s vultures has been taken to the edge of extinction by gamblers who smoke its brains in an attempt to gain supernatural powers of prediction.[ix]
::THE STAKEHOLDERS
The World Cup is a global event so when observing the big picture, everyone is a stakeholder in this issue. At a more immediate scale, the nations that have previously hosted or will soon host the World Cup are the most current stakeholders, with the individual cities and citizens being the next step down in scale. The cities and the citizens are faced with the issues that spiral from the corruption that occurs within the politics of the games. They are also affected by the carbon footprint the games leave behind as well as the remaining, unused infrastructure. For the Brazil games, 42% of the money is being invested from the public sector making the public direct stakeholders.[x]
::POTENTIAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
In the case of the 2010 South African games, the country did make some steps to help offset the carbon footprint. They planted thousands of trees in urban areas. They created a rail network to help visitor transportation and had a lot of advertising about Green Initiatives including making jerseys from recycled landfill plastic.[xi]
The Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Environment Programme have both taken steps to help reduce the carbon emissions from the South African and Brazilian games. GEF has given US$1 million to put solar panels on light fixtures in the South African host cities and is working towards helping Brazil with its conservation efforts.[xii]
Another possible solution is to work to make the stadiums portable. This would help reduce the amount of residual infrastructure the host cities are left with. This would also help cut down on carbon emissions since the infrastructure would only be on location for a short period of time and the construction would not be new construction but assembly processes. “Future projects draw on the insights from urban economics with the aim of a more effective integration of stadiums with urban needs hold the promise of enhanced externalities.”[xiii]
::ADDITIONAL LINKS AND SOURCES
Kronenburg, Robert, ed., Portable Archtecture. Oxford: Elsevier/Architecture Press, 2003.
Kronenburg, Robert, ed., Transportable Environments. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#
Messenger, Stephen. “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000.
Resource Annotation 1
Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000.
This book is a collection of interviews by famous architects who have designed stadiums around the world. There are also specific case studies on over a dozen stadium designs. The editor, Michelle Provoost was the curator of the exhibition in Netherlands Architecture Institute. She is currently the director at INTI International New Town Institute and is a partner at Crimson Architectural Historians. She has also written books about town planning, city centers and urban design. She has worked for many European architecture boards.
The book explores the aspects of a stadium, from its planning and historical context, to its social, cultural and political context. It also looks into how the stadium and the culture around games can help to revitalize a city.
The main topic of the text is demonstrated through extensive essays and interviews with people within the field of architecture. She also uses outside articles and many photos to explain the overarching effects of the stadium. There are documents on more than forty stadia as well as interviews with ten architectural practices that specialize in stadium construction.
“Stadium design involves more than simple construction; rather it expresses the significance of sport in our culture, as well as in the cultures of outer countries or regions. The history of stadium construction is thus not only interesting as a series of architectonic highlights, but also as a reflection of cultural and social developments.”[1]
“The expensive stadia are often seen as a catalyst for the regeneration of a city or an urban district, but it can also turn out that the public funds would have been better spent in other ways.”[2]
“But the real urban impact is not the stadium itself, it is all the traffic and the congestion that it creates. The frequency of movement of people and the period between these large movements is a large difficulty to overcome.”[3]
To fully understand the impact of the World Cup, one must first examine the stadium designs and the history of stadiums. Since up to twelve new stadiums are built for each World Cup, and at least twelve are utilized for the games, it is important to understand their architectural practice. This text dives into the history and workings of stadia. It shows that stadia are often used as ‘urban regeneration projects’ when in fact, the projects may be completely unsuccessful and are dead within a ten year timeline. The following quotes are two references from the text that I use in my presentation: “Sport has become big business. This is reflected in the player’s clothing, bedecked and printed with logos, in the stadia, plastered with sponsor’s signs, in the commercials that alternate with action replays on the giant video screen and, of course, in the stadium building itself.”[4] Another detail I have used is the general effect of the stadium on our culture. Games are the only thing that we would still have in a utopian society and they are essential to our global culture. The nature of the stadium and global competition helps both on a sports level, but also causes the countries of the host games to compete with each other on the current issues. Luckily, the issue is now sustainability, and Brazil is attempting to take measures to make itself more ‘green’ than South Africa, just as Qatar is attempting to best Brazil.
Resource Annotation 2
Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#
Maennig is a professor in the Department of Business and Economics at Hamburg University in Germany. His research concentrates on economic policy as well as sport economics. He has been published in a number of academic journals and has worked as an expert for bids for large sport events such as the Olympics and the World Cup.[5] du Plessis is a professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. The main topic of the text is using the 2006 German World Cup as a case study for the 2010 South African World Cup. By studying the German model, they could determine how to maximize the economic benefits and assure the sustainability of the investment in stadiums. In Germany, ticket sales helped the country to make a profit since they nearly sold out for every game. Super high ticket prices in South Africa hurt their chances at this. Very few studies have shown significant positive effects of sports facilities from large sports events. The argument is made through extensive comparison of the German games and the upcoming South African estimates. Charts visualize the expenditures of the countries and a cost-benefit analysis helps to drive the point home.
“In addition to the US$ 1.9 billion invested in stadiums, around US$ 2.7 billion was spent on WC-related infrastructure in Germany.12 It is significant that these costs exceeded the stadium costs despite the fact that the infrastructure that is relevant for large-scale sporting events already existed to a relatively high degree in Germany. There is thus every reason to pay primary attention to infrastructure costs, which are not likely to be any lower than stadium investments.”[6]
“The OC of the WC 2006 in Germany had an operating budget of US$ 571 million, on which it was able to produce a surplus of some US$ 206 million. In addition to the costs incurred by the OC, public funds financed some US$ 1.9 billion investment in sports stadiums and some US$ 2.7 billion for the related infrastructure. This investment created infrastructure for which there is a demand, and the projects are economically sustainable. For this reason, the capital layout can be regarded as costs of the WC only to a limited extent, which is indeed covered by the rent payments from the OC to the clubs.”[7]
“Stadium construction has often been driven by the need for financial return at the club level and only rarely has it pursued the target of positive effects for the region. Future projects that draw on the insights from urban economics with the aim of a more effective integration of stadiums with urban needs hold the promise of enhanced externalities.”[8]
The argument in the text supports my research into the unsustainable practice of the World Cup. Germany was one of the few countries that could actually support the stadiums since its clubs gave money and support and yet the country still ended up losing money. If the games themselves cannot generate a financial benefit for their host country, and the games also bring a huge environmental toll, then it is difficult to support the current game practices. The text also points out that the construction of the stadium allows for access into the urban economics of the cities and this is the area where intervention lies. I used the details from the quotes listed above in my wiki post and presentation.
Stephen Messenger is a writer and linguist currently living in Brazil. His writings have been published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications across the US. The main argument of the text is to point out the huge carbon footprint left by the 2010 South African games. He goes on to point out that a reason for this is the mode of transportation people took to get to the games. Most people had to fly to South Africa, as opposed to the German games where the majority of people took trains or cars. The lack of stadiums also meant that a lot of construction had to be done which created more CO2. He uses resources from the EU Infrastructure magazine to further his point as well as many links throughout his article to other articles supporting his point.
According to a studyconducted by the Norwegian embassy and South African government on the eve of the games, this year's World Cup will emit 2,753,251 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is roughly equivalent to the amount released by one million cars over the course of a year--and six times worse than those emitted during the last World Cup.[9]
According to the study, another 15,390 tons of CO2 went into building infrastructure to support the games. A shortage of soccer stadiums in South Africa meant that new ones needed to be built, meaning cement needed to be produced, and at a high cost to the environment. In manufacturing one ton of cement, a ton of CO2 is emitted, reports SuperMundo.[10]
This is one of the key sources and studies that shows the overall environmental impact of the games on a country. It also makes interesting comparisons between the South African and German games which relates back to the previous article. Carbon emission has a major environmental impact and if the trend is for it to increase with each successive World Cup, then we need to intervene. I referenced the above quotes in my presentation and wiki post.
THE FIFA WORLD CUP
word count: 2,950
::HISTORY OF THE WORLD CUP
Starting in 1930, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup has occurred 19 different times and has been won by 8 different countries. It started in Uruguay and has grown in popularity and size. World War II put the competition on hold for twelve years and then the games picked up their four year cycle again. Originally hosted by Europe and the Americas in a simple rotation, the competition is now on a twelve year cycle between host continents. In 1998, over 37 billion people watched the 64 game tournament around the world.[i]
::THE PROBLEM
One issue with the World Cup is that countries are forced to build at a rate that they cannont necessarily support. For the 2006 World Cup, Germany had existing stadiums and surrounding infrastructure prior to the games. For the 2014 Games, Brazil is doing a lot of construction to make ready for both the World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. The stadiums that Brazil did have needed major renovations to meet FIFA regulations.[ii] Qatar, the host of the 2022 World Cup does not have the infrastructure to host the games so they are attempting to build it. From nine stadiums to hundreds of hotels, the games are changing the face of the country.[iii]
To host the games requires a very large budget. Expenditures are difficult to track down and political corruption is affecting the appropriation of funds for both the upcoming Brazil and Qatar games. Australia did a cost analysis for their bid for the 2022 games and determined that they would loose money once they accounted for the cost of the infrastructure. After the games, the countries are left with large stadiums that they cannot support that then become unused, taking a toll of local economies. Stadiums themselves are not built with environmental concerns in their forefront of design and building a structure that has an inherently short lifespan is not sustainable. [iv] Over half of the stadiums built for the 2010 South African World Cup are unused and are on the verge of becoming financial sinkholes since they were not designed for after the games as well as for during the event.[v]
::THE MATRIX
The World Cup requires the collaboration of countries from around the world and deals with global politics as well as national politics. A few of the problems that the World Cup creates is the major expense of hosting the games. This assumes that the funds will be properly spent on things that will add to the experience of the event though countries that cannot support the basic, minimum infrastructure are not ruled out if they can pay FIFA enough for the ‘honor’ of hosting such as the case with Qatar. Another issue that the officials overlooked was the average summer temperatures of a Middle Eastern country adding more issues and expenses to the construction of suitable stadiums.[vi] Brazilian Sports Minister Orlando Silva, who had the responsibility of organizing the 2014 World Cup resigned less than a month ago amidst allegations of corruption. Scandals continue to appear in Brazil as the public keeps exposing political crime.[vii]
“Sport has become big business. This is reflected in the player’s clothing, bedecked and printed with logos, in the stadia, plastered with sponsor’s signs, in the commercials that alternate with action replays on the giant video screen and, of course, in the stadium building itself.”[viii] This issue links to the overwhelming effect of advertising on our culture as well as the sustainability problems big businesses bring with them.
Another issue is the massive carbon footprint the games have. In the 2010 World Cup, over 2.5 million tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere which is close to the amount from a million cars over the course of a year and is also six times greater than the amount from the last World Cup. The high amount of construction also created a large carbon footprint as well as South Africa’s reliance on coal burning plants for power. A small side effect of the South African games is that one of the country’s vultures has been taken to the edge of extinction by gamblers who smoke its brains in an attempt to gain supernatural powers of prediction.[ix]
::THE STAKEHOLDERS
The World Cup is a global event so when observing the big picture, everyone is a stakeholder in this issue. At a more immediate scale, the nations that have previously hosted or will soon host the World Cup are the most current stakeholders, with the individual cities and citizens being the next step down in scale. The cities and the citizens are faced with the issues that spiral from the corruption that occurs within the politics of the games. They are also affected by the carbon footprint the games leave behind as well as the remaining, unused infrastructure. For the Brazil games, 42% of the money is being invested from the public sector making the public direct stakeholders.[x]
::POTENTIAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
In the case of the 2010 South African games, the country did make some steps to help offset the carbon footprint. They planted thousands of trees in urban areas. They created a rail network to help visitor transportation and had a lot of advertising about Green Initiatives including making jerseys from recycled landfill plastic.[xi]
The Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Environment Programme have both taken steps to help reduce the carbon emissions from the South African and Brazilian games. GEF has given US$1 million to put solar panels on light fixtures in the South African host cities and is working towards helping Brazil with its conservation efforts.[xii]
Another possible solution is to work to make the stadiums portable. This would help reduce the amount of residual infrastructure the host cities are left with. This would also help cut down on carbon emissions since the infrastructure would only be on location for a short period of time and the construction would not be new construction but assembly processes. “Future projects draw on the insights from urban economics with the aim of a more effective integration of stadiums with urban needs hold the promise of enhanced externalities.”[xiii]
::ADDITIONAL LINKS AND SOURCES
Kronenburg, Robert, ed., Portable Archtecture. Oxford: Elsevier/Architecture Press, 2003.
Kronenburg, Robert, ed., Transportable Environments. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#
Messenger, Stephen. “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000.
Resource Annotation 1
Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000.
This book is a collection of interviews by famous architects who have designed stadiums around the world. There are also specific case studies on over a dozen stadium designs. The editor, Michelle Provoost was the curator of the exhibition in Netherlands Architecture Institute. She is currently the director at INTI International New Town Institute and is a partner at Crimson Architectural Historians. She has also written books about town planning, city centers and urban design. She has worked for many European architecture boards.
The book explores the aspects of a stadium, from its planning and historical context, to its social, cultural and political context. It also looks into how the stadium and the culture around games can help to revitalize a city.
The main topic of the text is demonstrated through extensive essays and interviews with people within the field of architecture. She also uses outside articles and many photos to explain the overarching effects of the stadium. There are documents on more than forty stadia as well as interviews with ten architectural practices that specialize in stadium construction.
To fully understand the impact of the World Cup, one must first examine the stadium designs and the history of stadiums. Since up to twelve new stadiums are built for each World Cup, and at least twelve are utilized for the games, it is important to understand their architectural practice. This text dives into the history and workings of stadia. It shows that stadia are often used as ‘urban regeneration projects’ when in fact, the projects may be completely unsuccessful and are dead within a ten year timeline. The following quotes are two references from the text that I use in my presentation:
“Sport has become big business. This is reflected in the player’s clothing, bedecked and printed with logos, in the stadia, plastered with sponsor’s signs, in the commercials that alternate with action replays on the giant video screen and, of course, in the stadium building itself.”[4]
Another detail I have used is the general effect of the stadium on our culture. Games are the only thing that we would still have in a utopian society and they are essential to our global culture. The nature of the stadium and global competition helps both on a sports level, but also causes the countries of the host games to compete with each other on the current issues. Luckily, the issue is now sustainability, and Brazil is attempting to take measures to make itself more ‘green’ than South Africa, just as Qatar is attempting to best Brazil.
Resource Annotation 2
Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#
Maennig is a professor in the Department of Business and Economics at Hamburg University in Germany. His research concentrates on economic policy as well as sport economics. He has been published in a number of academic journals and has worked as an expert for bids for large sport events such as the Olympics and the World Cup.[5] du Plessis is a professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa.
The main topic of the text is using the 2006 German World Cup as a case study for the 2010 South African World Cup. By studying the German model, they could determine how to maximize the economic benefits and assure the sustainability of the investment in stadiums. In Germany, ticket sales helped the country to make a profit since they nearly sold out for every game. Super high ticket prices in South Africa hurt their chances at this. Very few studies have shown significant positive effects of sports facilities from large sports events. The argument is made through extensive comparison of the German games and the upcoming South African estimates. Charts visualize the expenditures of the countries and a cost-benefit analysis helps to drive the point home.
The argument in the text supports my research into the unsustainable practice of the World Cup. Germany was one of the few countries that could actually support the stadiums since its clubs gave money and support and yet the country still ended up losing money. If the games themselves cannot generate a financial benefit for their host country, and the games also bring a huge environmental toll, then it is difficult to support the current game practices. The text also points out that the construction of the stadium allows for access into the urban economics of the cities and this is the area where intervention lies.
I used the details from the quotes listed above in my wiki post and presentation.
Resource Annotation 3
Messenger, Stephen. “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
Stephen Messenger is a writer and linguist currently living in Brazil. His writings have been published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications across the US.
The main argument of the text is to point out the huge carbon footprint left by the 2010 South African games. He goes on to point out that a reason for this is the mode of transportation people took to get to the games. Most people had to fly to South Africa, as opposed to the German games where the majority of people took trains or cars. The lack of stadiums also meant that a lot of construction had to be done which created more CO2. He uses resources from the EU Infrastructure magazine to further his point as well as many links throughout his article to other articles supporting his point.
The study can be found at: http://www.norway.org.za/NR/rdonlyres/3E6BB1B1FD2743E58F5B0BEFBAE7D958/114457/FeasibilityStudyforaCarbonNeutral2010FIFAWorldCup.pdf
This is one of the key sources and studies that shows the overall environmental impact of the games on a country. It also makes interesting comparisons between the South African and German games which relates back to the previous article. Carbon emission has a major environmental impact and if the trend is for it to increase with each successive World Cup, then we need to intervene. I referenced the above quotes in my presentation and wiki post.
[1] Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000, 7.
[2] ibid, 136.
[3] ibid, 180.
[4] ibid, 11.
[5]“Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Maennig.” http://www.uni-hamburg.de/economicpolicy/
[6]Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid
[9] Messenger, Stephen. “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
[10] ibid
[11] ibid
[i] “The History of the FIFA World Cup.” http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/worldcup/index.html
[ii] “Regulations 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil.” http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/47/38/17/regulationsfwcbrazil2014_en.pdf
[iii] “2022 FIFA World Cup Qatar.” http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/qatar2022/index.html
[iv] Muhlbeier, Debora Bressan. “World Cup 2014: Brazil to invest R$29 billion but return is doubtful.” 11 Oct 2010 http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/qatar2022/index.html
[v] “Cup Stadiums Unfit for Rugby, Cricket.” Associated Press. 18 Aug 2010. http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/5474678/south-africa-world-cup-stadiums-remain-unused
[vi] Tutton, Mark. “Qatar’s World Cup bid: A mirage in the desert?” CNN. 14 May 2010. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-14/world/qatar.world.cup.solar.cooling_1_stadiums-solar-power-photovoltaic-panels?_s=PM:WORLD
[vii] “Brazil sports minister resigns amid graft claims.” Agence France Presse. 27 Oct 2011. http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/sports/2011/10/27/brazil-sports-minister-resigns-amid-graft-claims/
[viii] Provoost, Michelle, ed., The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. Belgium: NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000, 11.
[ix] Messenger, Stephen. “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
[x] Muhlbeier, Debora Bressan. “World Cup 2014: Brazil to invest R$29 billion but return is doubtful.” 11 Oct 2010 http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/qatar2022/index.html
[xi] “The Carbon Footprint of the 2010 World Cup.” 14 June 2010. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-2010-world-cup.html
[xii] “Global Environment Facility and UNEP Meeting Highlight Major Environmental Initiatives.” 27 May 2010. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=624&ArticleID=6577&l=en
[xiii] Maennig, W. and DuPlessis, S. (2007), “World Cup 2010: South African Economic Perspectives and Policy Challenges Informed by the Experience of Germany 2006.” Economic Policy, 25: 578–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00074.x/full#